WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: Westchester’s Socio- Economic Divide

Westchester’s Socio- Economic Divide

Where Our County Tax Dollars Are Going Regional County Executives recently met with New York State Governor Patterson to request a reduction in state mandated programs and services that are not fully funded by the state. Most residents are aware that Westchester County taxes are the highest in the nation. On the County website, Andrew Spano, the Westchester County Executive, alleges, “Westchester would not have this dubious distinction if it were not for the fact that our property values are so high compared with the rest of the country”. Spano also blames much of the cost of County government on state and Federal “mandates”, such as Medicaid and school aid. However, these claims are based on dubious math and incorrect analyses and belie the real problem with our County government costs. First, it is not the “property values” that cause high taxes, as Spano would have us believe. Taxes do not necessarily have to increase in accordance with value. Some government costs are fixed, e.g., it does not cost more to collect garbage from, or run a sewer line to, a more expensive, newer home than to a lower valued older home. If the value of Westchester County homes truly affects our property taxes, then we would have the highest rates in proportion to value. But, according to the United States Census Bureau, Westchester County property tax rates, in relation to property values, do not even rank in the top 10. Second, if the New York State mandates are indeed responsible for the high cost of local property taxes, then all New York State counties would be feeling this impact. According to the Census Bureau, the median property taxes for Westchester County are $8,422, indeed making our County the highest in the nation. However, the median property tax for all New York State counties is $3,486, meaning half of the counties in New York State fall below this amount! The New York State Office of the Comptroller notes that: “Nassau, Putnam, Rockland, Suffolk and Westchester counties have tax burdens per household that are more than twice the statewide average. The remaining downstate suburban counties, Dutchess, Orange, Sullivan and Ulster, are also well above average. By contrast, several western and northern counties have overall burdens that are 20 percent or more below the state average”. So how can other New York State counties operate, under the same state mandates,at tax levels far below those of Westchester County? By keeping our taxes high, Spano is actually inhibiting Westchester’s ability to collect state and federal funds for programs, such as: • The Department of Agriculture which uses real estate taxes to determine which areas should receive direct multifamily loan assistance; • The Department of Health and Human Services which uses real estate taxes to assess the need for housing assistance for low-income, including elderly low-income, households. The County’s high taxes are actually one of the reasons why Westchester is not receiving more in aid for state and federal mandates. Currently, the County will receive 24.4% of its total operating revenues from New York State and the Federal government in 2009, a total of $416,506,114. But lower taxes and a lower tax rate would actually increase the aid to our County. So, if it’s not the state and federal mandates that are responsible for our high taxes, then what is the cause? The benefits received by county employees are placing a burden on overtaxed residents and creating a massive social divide in our local communities; those with government benefits, and those without. County employees receive health insurance and paid time off that extend far beyond benefits in the private sector. Among those benefits, our tax dollars fund for county employees, are: • Up to 750 paid workdays off for “employee organization leave”; • Employee representatives are granted reasonable and necessary employee organization leave, including travel time, for the investigation of claimed grievances and processing of grievances; • Employees are granted a reasonable amount of employee organization leave, including travel time, for the purpose of participating in mutually scheduled joint meetings of special committees; • Employees paid on an hourly, per diem, or annual salaried basis who work a minimum of one-quarter time, but less than half-time, during their qualifying period, receive $200; work a minimum of half-time, but less than three-quarters time, during their qualifying period, receive $400; work a minimum of three-quarters time, but less than full-time, during their qualifying period, receive $600; work the equivalent of full-time during their qualifying period receive $800 • “Inconvenience” pay of $550 per year to employees who work four hours or more between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m; • Holiday compensatory time credited for time worked on such days shall be calculated at the rate of time and one half; • $20 additional travel expense reimbursement for each weekend employees are in overnight travel status; • A supplemental mileage allowance rate for the use of personal vehicles for those persons eligible for such allowance when authorized to transport clients or residents, in addition to the standard IRS mileage reimbursement rate; • Health Insurance office visit charges by participating providers will be subject to a $12 copayment per covered individual. Office visit charges by participating providers for well child care, including routine pediatric immunizations, will be excluded from the office visit co-pays; • Maximum enrollee coinsurance out of pocket expense under the basic medical component of $900 per individual or family in any one year for County Court employees, $1,292 for most other County employees, as compared to $2,000 for many local non-government health insurance contracts; • Employees contribute $22.19 per biweekly paycheck for an individual health insurance plan as compared with many local employees who pay up to $600 a month, and more, for their own coverage; • Employees contribute $95.10 per biweekly paycheck for family health insurance coverage whereas most local companies can no longer afford to subsidize family coverage and employees must pay the cost in full, approximately $1,800. Also, since the family members do not work for the County, the question is raised as to why taxpayers should be paying the cost of health coverage for non-government employees? • Employees 50 years of age or older and their covered spouses/domestic partners 50 years of age or older are allowed up to $250 reimbursement annually towards the cost of a routine physical examination provided by are not be subject to a deductible and coinsurance, which begs the question, once again, why taxpayers are being asked to provide free physicals for spouses/domestic partners who are not government employees? • Hearing aids are reimbursed up to a maximum of $1,500 once every four years; • Free annual eye exams and free eyeglasses for every member of an employee’s family each year; • Maximum lifetime benefits for non-network substance abuse services of $250,000, compared to zero for many local non-government health insurance programs; • Provide basic medical coverage for the treatment of infertility up to a lifetime cap of $50,000 compared to zero for many local non-government health insurance programs; • Subsidizes 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent coverage toward the hospital/medical/mental health and substance abuse components. Most employees of local businesses have to finance 100% of the cost of coverage for their spouses/domestic partners and children; • Subsidizes 90 percent of the cost of individual coverage and 75 percent of the cost of dependent prescription drug coverage. Many local taxpayers have no prescription coverage at all; • Part-time employees; those who work at least half of the regularly scheduled work time, are entitled to full benefits. Most local part-time workers receive no benefits, including no health insurance or paid time off; • Seasonal employees who work at least a half-time basis for at least six months, are eligible to apply for health insurance coverage as of the date of employment. Most local seasonal workers receive no health insurance or paid time off; • Continued health insurance coverage will be provided for the un-remarried spouse and other eligible dependents of employees who die in government service. Local businesses offer insurance to these individuals under Federal COBRA laws where the spouse/dependents absorb the full cost of the benefits; • The un-remarried spouse and otherwise eligible dependent children of a retired/ deceased employee is permitted to continue coverage on the health insurance program

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: Has Congress Protected Us?

The Economic Crisis: Has Congress Protected Us?

Solving the Economic Crisis: Is It Even Possible? The recent events on Wall Street and in Congress have left many local residents wondering how it will affect them personally. But how did this mess get started in the first place? What happened to all the controls and regulations set in place after the Great Depression to prevent this type of debacle from happening again? Some of the blame lies with the deregulation of the banking industry. In 1999, pushed by Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, President Clinton signed the Financial Services Modernization Act (FSMA) which allowed for the integration of banking, insurance, and stock trading companies, a segregation that had been put in place in 1933. Prior to the FSMA, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were barred from each others’ industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated. FSMA was passed after substantial industry lobbying in Congress; approximately $300 million was spent by the lobbyists in total. The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee at the time, Texas Republican Phil Gramm, collected more than $1.5 million alone from the three industries involved. Opponents to the bill warned, “The bill ties the banking system and the insurance industry even more directly to the volatile United States stock market, virtually guaranteeing that any significant plunge on Wall Street will have an immediate and catastrophic impact throughout the United States financial system.” (source: wsws.org). Regulation of the banking industry had already started disappearing in the 1980’s under President Reagan and the Savings and Loan bailouts (S&L’s). For thoseGuardian readers who purchased homes in the early 1980’s and prior, you were subject to 20% down-payments, intense credit and employment checks, and regulations limiting your mortgage and property tax payments to 28% of your gross monthly income; your total personal credit outstanding, including car loans, credit cards, and student loan payments could not exceed 33% of your monthly gross income. If you had less than a 20% down payment, you were required to take out ‘mortgage insurance’ to guarantee your payments. Foreclosures were almost unheard of except in extreme unfortunate cases. But after the Reagan deregulations, new home owners could be offered variable-rate mortgages, mortgages that were interest only for the first few years, mortgages with low introductory rates, even mortgages with no down payment. Subprime lenders bragged that no income verification or credit checks were required for their mortgages. Television infomercials boasted how individuals could make a fortune from skyrocketing housing prices on houses purchased for investment with ‘no money down’ mortgages. The mortgage companies also targeted individuals with bad credit histories and people who could not afford the debt they were taking on. In 2006, it was estimated that 60% of all new mortgages were ‘subprime’. (source: Robert Kuttner ‘The American Prospect’). With such a lack of collateral and credit supporting these mortgages, the writing was on the wall for an economic collapse. Between 2004 and 2006, Alan Greenspan, as Chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, increased interest rates from 1% to 5.35%. Homeowners with low ‘teaser’ or variable rates on their mortgages faced significantly higher payments once the higher interest rates kicked in. With higher payments, default rates on sub-prime loans; high risk loans to clients with poor or no credit histories, started to rise. (source: BBC Business reports). In mid-to late 2007, mortgage companies, faced with increasing foreclosure rates, started collapsing and filing for bankruptcy. Other banks that had purchased mortgages from these companies felt the domino effect; the mortgages were worth less, or indeed, completely worthless, so the banks’ assets were in turn worth less, making it more difficult for them to borrow and lend. In July 2007, Bear Sterns announced that it could no longer borrow from other banks and its hedge funds had plunged in value. In August 2007, the European Central Bank pumped over $400 billion into the banking system to improve liquidity following the news from BNP Paribus, a European bank, that investors could not withdraw their funds due to an ‘evaporation of liquidity’, meaning that the global banks were refusing to do business with each other. The United States Federal Reserve immediately stepped in and dropped interest rates to entice lending and borrowing. It proved to be too little, too late as global banks announced major losses; several banks collapsed or were bought out by others. The remaining global banks cut back on lending to other banks based on concerns over lending to banks with risky mortgage investments, or on concerns for their own survival. Throughout the Fall of 2007 and the Spring of 2008, the Federal Reserve called several emergency sessions and continued to cut rates further to stem the worldwide hemorrhaging. By February 2008, Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under President Clinton, was warning of an even greater threat to the global banking environment: “Decades of United States government deregulation of Wall Street has reaped a whirlwind of irresponsible speculation. It’s ending in a financial meltdown that’s being remedied by government ownership, with all the strings that come with government ownership. And it’s not even OUR government that’s holding the strings.” Reich was referring to the rash of global banks being snatched up by foreign investors. As Reich noted last February: “There’s no end in sight for the credit crisis, and Middle Eastern and East-Asian ‘sovereign wealth funds’ are in the process of owning a larger and larger portion of the global banking system” In June of this year, the Qatar Investment Authority announced plans to invest £1.7 billion in Barclay’s Bank U.K., giving them a 7.7% share in the business. One of the main reasons therefore, why Congress is considering a buyout package for the United States banking system, is to keep our banks in United States hands and out of the hands of foreign governments and foreign investors. The job losses at the banks and mortgage companies, concurrent with the job losses in the housing and construction sectors, and the domino impact on other industries has now given rise to the highest unemployment figures since 1994 – in September, the United States Department of Labor announced that over 6% of the United States population is currently out of work, this situation is actually worse since unemployment numbers are traditionally ‘low-balled’ as they only count individuals currently collecting unemployment, i.e., people actively looking for work. They do not include individuals who have given up due to lack of employment in their field, such as the banking or housing construction industries, and/or taken menial jobs in the interim. In just the past three weeks, several major banks have either filed for bankruptcy, Lehman Brothers, or have been taken over in emergency buyouts by other banks, Washington Mutual, Merrill Lynch, and the Benelux governments of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg did a joint takeover of the European banking and insurance giant, Fortis. In mid-September, the United States Federal Reserve stepped in again and announced an $85 billion rescue package for AIG, the largest United States insurance company, in effect, a nationalization of this company since the government would get an 80% stake in AIG in return. Britain followed suit last week with the nationalization of their major mortgage lender, Bradford & Bingley. It still was not enough. The United States Congress was forced to step forward with a $700 billion rescue plan to ‘provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure several types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting taxpayers, and for other purposes” (source: Emergency Economic and Stabilization Act of 2008). On September 29, the United States Congress failed to pass the rescue plan. The global banks now face a major concern regarding how individual banks can handle the mortgages they’ve absorbed from failing banks and when the global banking industry can return to ‘normal’ operations. In response, the Belgian, French, and Luxemburg governments guaranteed an additional €6.4 billion ($9 billion) to failing banks on September 30th. That same day, the Irish government voted in favor of a €400 billion ($600 billion) to guarantee all deposits, bonds and loans, in the country’s main banks for two years. The Irish Prime Minister, Mr. Brian Cowen, was quoted as saying “The option of doing nothing, of not making a move, would put at risk the entire stability of the Irish financial system.” Which begs the question, if a small country like Ireland can guarantee $600 billion for the deposits of its citizens, albeit now giving their banks a lending advantage over other global banks, including United States institutions, what is our Congress doing to protect us in this crisis? That is the question on the minds of many local residents. The purpose of the bailout plan is to protect the average individual since its aim is to prevent complete fallout of the investment and financial community. Any local resident who owns investments or a pension plan would suffer severe losses if the stock markets and banks tumble further; most pensions are heavily invested in the stock market, including bank stocks. In addition, while the bailout plan allows for Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to buy up the dubious mortgage investments held by the banks, the United States taxpayers would get a non-voting stake in the banks to act as an investment. If the banks recover from this crisis, taxpayers would make a profit. However, if they do not, then the financial services industry would absorb the costs. The bailout plan also calls for financial institutions to take insurance policies against future losses on mortgage-backed securities. Of concern to average taxpayers are the incredible bonuses doled out by the financial industry. The bailout plan places limits on salaries and golden parachutes; the huge severance payments paid executives when leaving a company, are supposed to be eliminated. Finally, as the Irish Prime Minister correctly noted, the cost of doing nothing is far worse. As the global financial markets have already seen, if the United States does not act, other countries will, further jeopardizing our banks and our economy. If the United States banks cannot borrow money to lend out to investors, those investors will turn to other sources, such as the now-solvent Irish banks, for their business, causing an even greater decline in the our banking system with a still greater loss of jobs. The $700 billion needed for this bailout would not be raised through taxes. Instead, the government had intended to borrow the money from world financial markets by granting the Treasury the authority to issue an additional $700 billion worth of Treasury notes. On the plus side, once the housing market stabilizes, the Treasury could then sell the distressed assets back into financial markets, perhaps even making a profit. However, opponents of the bailout were concerned that issuing such an amount of Treasury debt would almost double the current budget deficit and make the United States still more dependent on foreign banks as they are the biggest purchasers of Treasury securities. In short, Robert Reich’s warnings that our banking system could end up under the control of foreign governments could come to pass. Some local Congressional representatives have claimed that they are listening to their constituents when voting against this bailout. Considering that all of the members of the House are up for reelection this November, those who initially voted against the bailout were placing their jobs above the global economy and constituents’ pensions and investments. However, our local Congressional representatives do not have this dilemma. Representative Eliot Engel (Democrat, 17th District) acknowledged in his press release on September 30 what most local residents already knew; this crisis affects New Yorkers most. As Rep. Engel noted: “While this is a national and international crisis, it is magnified for New York City and State. Both Governor Paterson and Mayor Bloomberg are already cutting their budgets because of this crisis. Wall Street is an integral part of the New York City and State economies, and both governments rely heavily on the jobs associated with it.” Rep. Engel further noted, “In order to govern effectively you must compromise. This bill was not what I would have written, but I was willing to accept it because of the compromises I received in it. These included Congressional oversight, the elimination of ‘golden parachutes’, the disbursement of funds in stages, and, most importantly, the guarantee that the American taxpayer would receive any profit that came from the sale of the loans to the financial industry”. Not every government representative or candidate is concerned about their job; some are even seeing an increase in support thanks to this crisis. Toby Heaps, the spokesperson for Ralph Nader’s Presidential campaign, stated that they have seen a significant increase in interest and support in the past week. “Nader has been fighting Wall Street and corporate corruption for his entire career and the voters know that. He represents true change here. McCain supports more spending on the war and Obama will just leave voters with the chump change in their pockets” Heaps stated. Both McCain and Obama have voiced their support of a banking bailout package. As a result “Many voters are now switching their support over to Nader,” Heaps noted. On his web site, Nader gives his position on the bailout supported by McCain, Obama, and Bush: “Here comes the MOB. With an October surprise. The MOB? That would be McCain/Obama/Bush. With the Mother Of all Bailouts. McCain/Obama/Bush are pushing hard for the bailout of Wall Street crooks. While Nader/Gonzalez stand with the American people in opposition. Why are we in this mess? As Richard Fischer, the president of the Federal Reserve in Dallas put it yesterday, we’re in this mess because of ‘a sustained orgy of excess and reckless behavior.’ Why then should we bail out those who engaged in the orgy? We shouldn’t. And it’s time to stand up and speak in one loud and clear voice. No to the bailout. Vote Ralph Nader, the man who for his entire career has pushed for tough law and order regulation of Wall Street; regulation that would have prohibited the orgy of excess and reckless behavior. The bailout of Wall Street crooks will be the number one issue throughout October.” The New York Times has also noted the sudden and unexpected sources of support for Nader’s stand in this crisis. In an online blog, the chief financial correspondent for the Times and the International Herald Tribune, Floyd Norris, reported “So much for party discipline. This bill was supported by John McCain and Barack Obama, the presidential candidates who, between them, have the support of nearly every member of the House. But a majority of the House voted along with Bob Barr, the Libertarian who said, “We need to make Wall Street take the hit for its irresponsible investment decisions,” and Ralph Nader, the Independent candidate who described the bill as a ‘bailout for Wall Street crooks’. I had assumed the House leadership could assure that enough members of both parties held their noses and voted yes to gain a narrow margin for passage. But what we have here is a rejection of what Mr. Nader calls the two ‘corporate candidates’.” Given their support for the bailout plan, perhaps the voters also now view both Obama and McCain as ‘corporate candidates’ and will demand a complete change in November. Congress’ nay vote on September 29th sent shockwaves around the global financial community. Given the growing economic crisis, US citizens may send out a shockwave of their own this Election Day. One thing is agreed upon by all the economists and politicians, this crisis will not resolve itself anytime soon.

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: Dr. Cavallo Diagnoses State of Westchester Politics “Sickly”

Dr. Cavallo Diagnoses State of Westchester Politics “Sickly”

Calls DA Janet DiFiore’s Performance One of His Greatest Disappointments Unfortunately, the state of Westchester County politics is sickly. We are in a very precarious state since the Democratic Party in Westchester County has sought to consolidate power and create a one-party, autocratic political environment. This should cause great political alarm to those citizens who are struggling to make ends meet in these difficult economic times, particularly for the middle- and working-class families who bear the heaviest proportionate burden, as well as those who care about how effectively, and how much, of our hard-earned taxpayer money is being spent without political repercussions. Let me explain what I mean. When the Republican and Democratic Party each share political power, there is a healthy system of ‘checks and balances’ which works to ensure that the citizens, and their hard-earned tax dollars, are adequately protected from waste and abuse by government officials. As it stands right now, with the County Executive, District Attorney, and 13 of 17 members of the County Legislature all Democrats, the balance of power has tipped dangerously to one side of the scale, and citizens are increasingly powerless to hold elected officials fiscally accountable. This dangerous trend severely undermines true democratic government and needs to be stopped and reversed. Otherwise, Westchester County will eventually become a place where only the super rich or the very poor live. None of us want that. Examples of the County’s egregious waste of taxpayer money abound but, as an example, Gary Kriss, who already earns a whopping $150,000 as chief advisor to Westchester County Board of Legislators Chairman Bill Ryan, was called out by the press for purchases just short of $13,000 In unnecessary high-tech computer gadgets and soft- ware, not to mention an additional $10,000 in taxpayer-reimbursed cell phone bills, and even a cigar purchase at taxpayer expense. Does this sound like a fiscally-restrained way to use taxpayer money? In an era, where people are spending $60, $70 or $80 for a single tank of gas; not to me. No wonder grassroots political movements have started to get momentum from within the Democratic Party establishment, seeking to explore whether the size of County government should be dramatically reduced or completely abolished, as it was, for example, in nearby Fairfield County, Connecticut. I do not know if this is the solution to the problem, but it certainly needs to be looked at and evaluated. Perhaps leaders such as Westchester County Board of Legislators Chairman Bill Ryan should tread lightly in this political and economic environment before seeking to ram a 90% salary increase down the throats of a now veto-proof Democratic legislative majority which spends nearly $2 billion of our money each year. Strong and well-qualified Republican candidates, in particular, are urgently needed. The Republican Party leadership should use this opportunity to run qualified candidates who advocate for and actually implement real political and cost-saving reforms to benefit all citizens of Westchester County. Talk is cheap; the people want action and should elect those candidates who are most likely to deliver. To be completely candid, one of my greatest disappointments as Chairman of the Independence Party here in Westchester County is District Attorney Janet DiFiore. As the voters in Westchester County will remember, in choosing to join with our Republican Party friends back in 2005, the Independence Party endorsement provided the margin of victory in her narrow vote margin over Tony Castro. It was really disconcerting to me that, after getting elected three times with Republican and Independence Party support, first as a County Court Judge, then Supreme Court Justice, and then Westchester County District Attorney, Ms. DiFiore showed her true colors in being a disloyal turncoat to the very people who worked so hard to support her, raised money for her, and got her elected, by changing her party registration to Democrat in the middle of her term of office. As the people may also remember, our District Attorney, during the 2005 campaign, strongly blasted her opponent, and the Democratic Party, for not knowing how to fight crime here in Westchester County. Yet, just 1-1/2 years later, last summer, out of left field, she changes her registration and tells the people back in August, “…the principles of the Democratic Party are closely aligned with my views.” The way I see it, she ran over to the Democratic Party in 2007 because she knows that her performance as District Attorney will not get her reelected if she runs on her record with Republican and Independence Party support in 2009. In case anyone was wondering, the last Democratic District Attorney to serve here in Westchester was a guy named William Platt, back in 1895, more than 100 years ago. I guess that gives some idea as to how afraid the DA was to stay a Republican! As I see it, in taking an objective look at the crime statistics so far, the DA had reason to panic, more than two years before having to stand for reelection. Despite the fact that there are well over 3,000 full-time sworn and civilian law enforcement personnel Countywide, our present District Attorney, Janet DiFiore, has been largely ineffective in combating crime, particularly violent crime, here in Westchester County, during her time in office. While she is certainly big on announcing new flowery initiatives to ensure positive public relations for her office, such as her “Prom and Graduation Safety Summit Aimed at Parents” and her “Mothers Against Violence Encouraging Responsibility in Community Kids”, they seemed to be concerted efforts to distract the citizens of Westchester County from her inability to oversee more “nuts and bolts” crime-fighting during her time in office. For example, the taxpayers of Westchester County might be surprised to know that the amount of reported murders, rapes and aggravated assaults, were all up in 2007 over 2006 levels when DA DiFiore came into office. People might also be surprised to learn that Westchester County’s per capita 2007 rate of violent crime was approximately 50 percent higher than that of our suburban neighbors in Rockland, Nassau and Suffolk Counties, almost 3½ times that of Putnam County, and just slightly better than Staten Island, one of the five counties of New York City. I think that District Attorney DiFiore has some explaining to do to her constituents. Perhaps the reason for the increase in violent crime can be explained by the amount of felony arrests, both for drug and violent felonies, which were down significantly in 2007 over 2006, as well as felony DWI arrests, which were down in 2007 almost 20 percent from the year before. Our citizens should also know that the felony arrest conviction rate here in Westchester County slipped below 80 percent, actually 79.4 percent in 2006, for the first time in recent memory, under DA DiFiore’s tenure. It is all right there, in black and white, on the Division of Criminal Justice Services website, for all to see. Aside from violent crime going up, and the conviction rate going down, here in Westchester, the DA seems to have some critical internal communication problems in her Office as demonstrated in the Ridley, Marquez, and Florim cases. It’s not me who is saying it; it is a current ADA in her office, as well as County Court Judge Rory Bellantoni in his opinion in a case called People v Schelenbach. In that case, Judge Bellantoni granted a criminal defendant’s motion to dismiss an indictment charging multiple counts of sexual abuse and forcible touching, in the interests of justice. The motion took place after the DA’s Office had reduced an initial “D” violent felony plea offer down to the possibility of outright dismissal, over an approximately 7-1/2 month period, and then, suddenly did a complete about-face and requested an immediate trial. Judge Bellantoni said, “For the People to withdraw an offer, cease negotiations and demand a trial as charged, after months of negotiating towards a non-criminal disposition or outright dismissal, would have a negative impact on the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly where the resolution is otherwise appropriate, but is being withdrawn because of an internal breakdown in communication within the District Attorney’s Office.” Judge Bellantoni went on to say in the Schelenbach case that there is an erosion of public trust in the DA’s Office. It’s no wonder that morale at the DA’s Office is so low among the ADAs and support staff. All in all, the DA’s record of personal and professional disloyalty to her supporters, questionable competence in fighting violent crime here in Westchester County, particularly compared to other suburban counties in the New York City metropolitan area, and communication breakdowns in criminal prosecutions out of that Office, should give people cause for concern when they evaluate their choice for Westchester County District Attorney next year. During the months ahead, the Independence Party will make a concerted effort to double our current Party registration and continue to seek out highly qualified candidates who believe in the calling of public service and good government, whether in the executive, legislative, or judicial branches, candidates who will serve the people of Westchester County with dedication, enthusiasm, and the highest level of professional competence. That is my mission as a civic leader and Chairman of the Independence Party.

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: A Fish Rots From The Head Down

A Fish Rots From The Head Down

Kriss Affair: Something Stinks In the Disconnect Of County Government There is something fundamentally disconnected about the relationship between taxpayers and Westchester County Government. It has been the situation for many years now. Viewed objectively, there is little that goes on either in the County Executive’s Office or the Board of Legislators that is of any great moment to the majority of Westchester residents other than the raising or lowering of their taxes. One simply doesn’t get the impression that the organizations on the eighth and ninth floors of the County Office Building are particularly plugged in to the needs, or the concerns, of the nearly one million people who share the county with them. Many citizens feel the detachment, and are lucky if they can name their local legislator. Certainly, most would be hard-pressed to name half, or even a third, of the seventeen on the Board. Sadly, in concert with Larry Schwartz, mastermind of the County Executive’s Office, the Board will spend two thousand dollars this year, of our money, for every man, woman and child who calls Westchester their home; a budget of nearly $2 billion. If the County Executive and the County Legislators are supposed to exist in a relationship of checks and balances, that notion died nearly 11 years ago when Larry Schwartz, bluntly speaking, took over County Government. How can there be checks and balances when one diabolicalcontrol-freak decides who will run for office, and controls the purse strings of the political party, the Democrats, who have more than 100,000 more registrants than do the Republicans? And, it doesn’t end with the selection and financing of legislators who will be loyal, and beholden, to Schwartz. It reaches its ugly paw into the courthouse, the selection of candidates, and rigging of elections, for judges, for County Clerk, and most importantly, District Attorney. They’ve got it all sewn up. After all, they don’t want the wrong persons to come along and file nominating petitions without “kissing Larry’s ring.” The end product is arrogant, damned insensitive local government. It’s tough enough for constituents to deal with that kind of disrespect from Washington and Albany; self-serving career liars and manipulators. But, here, at the local level, so-called public servants trying to milk part-time positions into six-figure annuities, and beyond, seems so out-of-touch, so misguided and crass. Surely, they don’t want to be perceived as they truly are. Consider the Gary Kriss affair: After many months of trying to pass unreasonable and unwarranted pay raises for themselves, the County Legislators, each of whom earn more than $1,000 a week for a part-time job, were pushing a whopping increase for Chairman Bill Ryan, from $89,000 to $125,000. Often, along comes the revelation that Ryan’s shadow, his ‘Chief Advisor’, Gary Kriss, already earning the $150,000 that Ryan got so sullied grabbing for, was also spending taxpayers’ Hard-earned dollars, perhaps $12,000 or more, on personal expenses. And, at the same time, he was piling up months and months of vacation time in violation of the rules. But, then, it does appear that the rules that govern County employees somehow didn’t apply to him. At a time when everyone is getting wiped out, with $4-plus gas, milk, and food costs going through the roof, and job layoffs and cutbacks, we learned of Chairman Ryan’s best buddy’s largess, and possible unlawful use of Taxpayers’ funds for his personal enterprise and entertainment, as well as political activity. No doubt, with a wink of an eye from Andy Spano, his favorite DA, Janet DiFiore, announced she was looking into the unusual expenditure of public funds by Kriss for any possible criminal implications. A call by The Guardian to DiFiore’s Office last Tuesday con-formed that Kriss was “still under active investigation.” On Monday, August 11, the “Special Committee On Internal Controls And Procedures” of the County Legislature released the report commissioned by Chairman Ryan. That committee had been established just two months earlier, on June 10, by Ryan, who also named all five of its members; Democrats Ken Jenkins, of Yonkers, named as Committee Chair, William Burton, of Ossining, and Peter Harckham, of Bedford, as well as Republicans Gordon Burrows, of Yonkers, and George Oros, of Cortlandt, legislative Minority Leader. Questioned last Tuesday by The Guardian as to “Why wasn’t GaryKriss made to testify before the Special Committee with regard to howhe spent thousands of dollars of taxpayers’ money”, Jenkins responded,“Our charge was not to conduct an inquisition, but to review the expensesfor adherence to policies and practices.” He then paused a moment, andadded, “People didn’t think it applied to them; their mindset was We don’thave to do things that way.” Asked, “Why wouldn’t you want him to make a public accounting?” Jenkins responded, “We found $2,695 in reimbursed expenses, and $300 on a County purchase card, for a total of $2,995. We have a list of all these expenses.” Interviewed earlier on Tuesday, Republican George Oros had said, “Kriss has no incentive to provide an explanation or reimbursement.” When Oros’ remarks were related to Jenkins, the Committee Chair told The Guardian, “We are penalizing Mr. Kriss for use of County equipment on County time at the rate of about two hours a day during the election period for a total penalty of ten days.” Oros had told The Guardian that he was upset with Committee Chairman Jenkins who, he said, had made light of Kriss’ conduct, stating, “It was only $12,000 in a $2 billion budget.” When prodded about his comments to Oros, Jenkins said, “The Committee is not trying to protect anybody. They were stupid purchases at best, criminal at worst.” Again, there is such a huge disconnect between those in County Government and those paying the freight. To begin with, the common term for Gary Kriss’ misconduct is theft, whether it’s a theft of services, as in the case of thousands of dollars in phone calls, or theft of merchandise, as in soft ware, being Chairman Ryan’s “buddy” doesn’t confer immunity, either from scrutiny or prosecution. Surely, the taxpaying public has a right to know the facts. District Attorney Janet DiFiore is another story altogether. It’s difficult to second-guess what a prosecutor, who goes around prosecuting victims of police brutality with trumped-up charges, is likely to do in any given situation. Given her own fraudulent political activities, her abandonment of the Republican Party, and those who helped her political ambitions for years, not to mention her incestuous relationship with Larry Schwartz and Andy Spano, conspicuous since Election Day 2005, it may well be that Gary Kriss’, indeed, perhaps even Bill Ryan’s, personal and political futures now rest in the hands of Larry and Andy. The kinds of issues raised by Kriss’ behavior, and possibly Ryan’s conduct, after the fact, comes under the heading of Public Integrity, a unit run for many years by Assistant District Attorney Mike Hughes. Just ponder the job Di-Fiore and Hughes did with the killing of Mount Vernon Police Detective Christopher Ridley by three of four Westchester County cops last January 25. Anywhere other than Westchester, Gary Kriss would have resigned several weeks ago, and written a check to the County for $12,000, or whatever the final total of his malfeasance in office may ultimately total. Bill Ryan would finish out his present term and go quietly to work for that $150,000 job Liz Schollenberger tells us he could have as a lobbyist. Perhaps, another highly ethical guy, Al Pirro, might be willing to help get Bill started. You never know, maybe Al owes him one for one of those deals he slipped into White Plains even after his license to practice law was suspended for three years. However, because this is Westchester, Gary Kriss continues to be employed, receiving more than $12,000 a month using up week after week of vacation time that nobody else in County Government could have accumulated under the rules. And, of course, Bill Ryan is back in the saddle, thankfully having recovered from heart surgery, looking a whole lot healthier, and, as if to add insult to injury, frantically putting out press releases such as his July 30 effort, headlined, “Ryan Secures More Assistance, Services For Battered Women: County Board Chairman Arranges $20,000...” or his August 12 dandy, “Scarsdale Teens Get Further Support From Ryan.” Oh, yes, what did this 60-dayold Special Committee, formed by one of the subjects whose conduct needed scrutiny, conclude before anything else? One might have guessed it; “Name A Full Time Chief Of Staff.” In other words, add still another layer of bureaucracy; someone to oversee the 17-member Board, the 48-person staff, and provide still another layer of insulation between County Government and those footing the bill while trying to make ends meet. Most disturbing, once again there is the distinct stench of entitlement surrounding the entire Kriss Affair. Somehow, it’s not what he is accused of doing, or even, in fact, what he did; it’s that he got caught doing it. It’s not the stain and the humiliation we, who have been betrayed, would think one must feel, who has been presumed to be a dedicated public servant. Rather, it’s the inconvenience, the distraction, disclaimers, and posturing, the whole dance that one’s peers are now going through That upsets and concerns far too many who ought to be feeling indignant, disappointed, and outraged. Instead, there are far too many Liz Schollenbergers, too many in the supporting cast of the “entitled”, all too ready to rush in with the perfume and deodorant of rationalization and excuse to cover up the stench. But our noses have told us, and continue to remind us, “Something stinks about all of this, like rotten fish.” And, as we all know, afish rots from the head down.

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: First Of Former Mt. Vernon Officials Pleads Guilty In Federal Court

Retired Mount Vernon Official Pleads Guilty In U.S. Court to Accepting Bribes from Waste Haulers MICHAEL J. GARCIA, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that JAMES CASTALDO, a former high-ranking supervisor for the City of Mount Vernon Department of Public Works, pleaded guilty today to accepting bribes from waste haulers in return for allowing them to overbill the City of Mount Vernon by at least $1.25 million for the removal of debris from a municipal storage yard. CASTALDO pleaded guilty before United States District Judge KENNETH M. KARAS in White Plains federal court a two count criminal Information (the “Information”) charging bribery and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. An Indictment against waste haulers involved in the scheme was unsealed on March 19, 2008 (the “Indictment”). According to the Information, the Indictment and the criminal Complaint against CASTALDO unsealed on April 1, 2008, a Westchester waste-hauling company, A & D Carting, obtained a contract with the City of Mount Vernon in November 2001 to remove waste from a City storage yard at a price of $397 per 30-cubicyard container removed. To bill the City of Mount Vernon under the contract, A & D Carting was required to submit invoices identifying how many 30-cubic-yard containers were removed on particular dates, together with a pre-printed receipt form (which is commonly referred to as a “ticket”) for the removal of each container. The tickets were supposed to be signed by a City of Mount Vernon employee at the yard at the time each container was carted away. From 2002 through March 2006, Albert Tranquillo III, who controlled and operated A & D Carting, defrauded the City of Mount Vernon by submitting tickets and invoices claiming that far more waste had been carted away from the yard than had actually been removed, it was charged. According to the Information and Complaint, CASTALDO and another DPW employee who worked at the Mount Vernon storage yard agreed that the employee would initial as many tickets As A& D Carting drivers gave to him. These tickets falsely represented that A & D Carting had carted away far more debris from the Mount Vernon storage yard than had actually been removed. These extra tickets were then mailed to the City of Mount Vernon together with invoices which significantly overstated the amount of waste removed. As a result, the City of Mount Vernon is alleged to have been defrauded of at least $1.25million. CASTALDO, who retired in 2005, accepted bribes from A & D Carting as part of the scheme to overbill the City of Mount Vernon. When A & D Carting received checks from Mount Vernon, CASTALDO would call A & D Carting and, using code, request a payment from Tranquillo or his relative. CASTALDO, the Complaint alleges, paid a portion of the bribes he received to the DPW employee who initialed the fraudulent tickets. CASTALDO, age 61, admitted to Judge KARAS this morning that he had taken bribes from the waste haulers and that he had conspired with them to defraud the City of Mount Vernon. CASTALDO faces a maximum sentence of 30 years’ imprisonment as well as financial penalties, including restitution to the City of Mount Vernon. CASTALDO is scheduled to be sentenced on October 24, 2008, at 12 noon. Mr. GARCIA praised the investigative work of the FBI and stated that the investigation is ongoing. Assistant United States Attorney ARLO DEVLIN-BROWN is in charge of the prosecution. The charges contained in the Indictment against the waste haulers are merely accusations, and those defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

WESTCHESTER GUARDIAN: Yonkers Police Brutality

They Do It Because They Can

DiFiore’s Incestuousness With Yonkers Police Sacrifices Victims Of Police Brutality Tony Castro Predicts, “It Will Come Back To Haunt Law Enforcement” Nearly two years ago, in our September 21, 2006 issue, TheGuardian blew the lid off years of Yonkers Police brutality, revealing an incident in 2005 in a front-page story entitled Mother, 72, Daughter,49, Charge Yonkers Police Brutality. That story, which detailed the serious civil rights violations the Yonkers Police Department committed when they roughed up a middle-aged woman and her elderly mother, up behind Saunders High School, opened the floodgate to reports by residents, all over the City, and caused the sudden resignation and retirement of Police Commissioner Robert Taggart. Within a week of the appearance of that story, President Karen Edmonson and Attorney Mike Sussman, of the Yonkers chapter of the NAACP, held a speak-out session at the Riverfront Library, attended by more than 125 persons, many of whom told about their own, and their family’s, including mother’s and children’s, brutal encounters with the Yonkers Police, involving little or no provocation or justification. Attorneys and law students from Pace Law School’s Criminal Justice Center, recorded their accounts which ultimately came to the attention the United States Attorney’s Office and the FBI. More than a year ago, the FBI, in response, announced that they were conducting a “formal investigation into allegations of police brutality in Yonkers.” The Guardian is aware of visits by FBI special agents to a number of victim/complainants, including Tina and Mary Bostwick, the mother and daughter subjects of our first report. To date, we are not aware of any reports having been issued, or affirmative action having been taken by the United States Attorney’s Office, or the FBI, that might impact the continuing, unlawful brutality, and false criminal charges routinely worked against innocent men, women and children by, perhaps, 20 or so rogue, violent police officers out of a force of some 670. Last fall, a second speak-out was held at the Riverfront Library;this time in the auditorium, a few weeks prior to the mayoral election.Mayor Amicone, who had been campaigning nearby, came into the auditorium in an ill-advised attempt to whitewash and dilute theconcerns of the diverse, but mostly minority, audience. He was quicklybooed and jeered, and literally chased from the auditorium. In case after case, the routine has been the same; Yonkers Policebeating up innocent citizens, then charging them with Disorderly Conduct, Obstruction of Governmental Administration, Resisting Arrest, Assault Upon A Police Officer, or any combination thereof, both to cover and provide justification for their own criminal, civil rights violations, and as “bargaining chips” intended to discourage civilian victims from lodging criminal and/or civil complaints. The practice has been going on for many years; DA Jeanine Pirro, for the most part, looking the other way. However, DA Janet DiFiore has literally become a co-conspirator with Police Commissioner Hartnett and Mayor Amicone in case after case, as in the Irma Marquez case. Marquez, all but killed by a totally unjustified body slam delivered by Yonkers Police Officer Wayne Simoes, on March 3, 2007, was charged and prosecuted by DA DiFiore for Obstruction Of Governmental Administration and Disorderly Conduct, an absolutely absurd response by the DA given the clear, indisputable evidence provided by a security camera videotape at the scene. Those who might wonder why Janet DiFiore repeatedly abandons her sworn duty to protect innocent citizens in her rush to aid and assist rogue Yonkers cops, while covering up the Department’s serious civil rights violations, need to understand that she has a deep indebtedness to the Yonkers Police, given the circumstances surrounding her race for District Attorney against Tony Castro in 2005. In point of fact, DiFiore, whose husband attempted to bribe Right-To-Life candidate Anthony DiCintio off the ballot, was nonetheless publicly endorsed by the Yonkers Police Department. They were the host department at the Yonkers Polish Center within days of the election at a rally by police brass from Harrison, Dobbs Ferry and other departments. But, more importantly, and more suspect, they were the department assigned to secure the warehouse storage facility on Saw Mill River Road, where more than 300 voting machines were impounded at DiFiore’s request; a request filed three days before the election was even held. This writer, who was reporting at the time for Martinelli Publications, witnessed the recanvas of those machines. Having been Tony Castro’s campaign director when, as a total unknown he came close to defeating Jeanine Pirro four years earlier, I quickly recognized the peculiar voting patterns revealed in the 2005 Yonkers recount, not to mention numerous machines with broken seals. Despite the so-called “Non-Aggression Pact” of 2001, where Andy Spano and Larry Schwartz, and Reggie Lafayette, and all their henchmen, were actually part of the “fix” to reelect Jeanine Pirro, I never doubted that she won by six points, actually receiving more votes than my candidate. I have never enjoyed that lack of doubt with respect to Janet DiFiore. Given the totality of the circumstances, what reasonably intelligent individual could? Finally, speaking of Tony Castro, exposure of Irma Marquez’ case, less than two weeks ago, with its shocking videotape, brought to mind his client, Rui Florim, now approximately 23, who was beaten by six Yonkers police officers approximately 2 years ago. The facts of his encounter are no less outrageous and egregious. Florim, who had gotten off work at 10:30pm from O’Porto Restaurant in the Village of Hartsdale, Town of Greenburgh, was being driven home by a female friend, having just crossed Central Avenue when they were pulled over by flashing lights in a dark area of the roadway. Six Yonkers Police Officers, including one female, all dressed in civilian clothing, pulled Florim from his friend’s car. And, forcing him into their unmarked car, four of them beat him about the face and head mercilessly. He was then taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital, opposite Yonkers Police Headquarters, a hospital repeatedly used as the depository for victims of Yonkers Police brutality. He required 70 stitches and staples and five days in the Intensive Care Unit to recover. While he was in St. Joseph’s, Yonkers Police physically barred his family, and his attorney, from any contact with him. Tony Castro represents Mr. Florim in State Court because, as with Irma Marquez, DA DiFiore is prosecuting him on trumped-up charges. Florim, will, no doubt, also be bringing an action in Federal Court. Castro told The Guardian, “The District Attorney’s routine response to Yonkers Police brutality is very short-sighted. She is not looking ahead to the long-term implications for juries and verdicts. Jurors will learn what has been taking place. And, what has happened in The Bronx is what will happen in Yonkers, and all over Westchester.” Castro went on, “It will come back to haunt law enforcement all across Westchester in the near-future. Their jury service is where citizens express their feelings about what they experience with police.” Tony Castro, a former Bronx Assistant District Attorney, with 14 years experience, who trained hundreds of prosecutors, and who was Deputy Bureau Chief of Homicides and the Grand Jury, was referring specifically to the preferential treatment DA DiFiore has repeatedly shown the Yonkers Police Department at the expense of innocent citizens, as she has consistently been unwilling to investigate and prosecute their brutality against men, women and children. He is concerned that grand juries and trial juries will become so cynical and jaded that they will refuse to indict, or convict, in cases that are dependent upon police accounts.